Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process

Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com> Thu, 21 November 2013 21:33 UTC

Return-Path: <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
X-Original-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CFDC11ADFF3 for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:33:38 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id xbprtKt2zo7R for <rtcweb@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:33:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-ee0-x22c.google.com (mail-ee0-x22c.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4013:c00::22c]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id DDF4E1ADF81 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:33:36 -0800 (PST)
Received: by mail-ee0-f44.google.com with SMTP id d51so142939eek.3 for <rtcweb@ietf.org>; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:33:29 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlemail.com; s=20120113; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; bh=oHHHM4OGxwSrBejIi85FZdvM90nSv75rrvFbkYlixqY=; b=aWOMUNK7U7mmpDYCfnmWvYYtUcc2gyPt58XxqJgSh6FW9Kk+Y0lAqO20tYXDmlnKR1 zHetKFNW1rX4yO2AXwrC3pzr8ghIQVqBgYdhHbYtZs0oSHJ5faVdKd0mni6io9GFNPnw oUEvSz8qT8UllnyMVhfC8dFlk+A0JA5rM/Vqw9aJxR3hkGR+sMWOm27jKPGpavUaOTI+ YHG42zqhOfl/B7iVHttsVjzKFSrZyN+TGpqsGJcvTJ52LpqaIb6MlTrsAEAx/vcNQC1O vUjoKfyhNh2pvRokfknglSj3sQTbuDiqpfOgBnxndBy1WkogsHO10NRRPbquRtr5KEZ7 AC6w==
X-Received: by 10.15.26.131 with SMTP id n3mr11444540eeu.21.1385069609604; Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:33:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.2.101] (dslb-188-101-189-061.pools.arcor-ip.net. [188.101.189.61]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id g8sm74069007eep.20.2013.11.21.13.33.28 for <rtcweb@ietf.org> (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Thu, 21 Nov 2013 13:33:28 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <528E7C26.3000100@googlemail.com>
Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 22:33:26 +0100
From: Maik Merten <maikmerten@googlemail.com>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.1.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: rtcweb@ietf.org
References: <528E39F4.4010706@ericsson.com> <CAEqTk6RrHSzgJ9QA_spJQWN+6SaRWwwq6H4cwBxNbTHXnHmhYA@mail.gmail.com> <8647A71C-CDCF-4897-96D6-4CD1C6566BE6@cisco.com> <CAOJ7v-1kdXreZbF0Q7=DinObV5=eWcdfFuwrJ13BQ0Hk=Fec-Q@mail.gmail.com> <528E5B47.70702@nostrum.com> <20131121204147.GV3245@audi.shelbyville.oz> <528E71AC.4040202@librevideo.org> <CABkgnnUKPMTpMqX6G5=kDQomG9wgqZeTomOnjGecTFZ7T3GjfQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBO+cd46EOXCCO+qh5OtYWZz6Fam9O0RhY=vHVGUCMfhdA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABcZeBO+cd46EOXCCO+qh5OtYWZz6Fam9O0RhY=vHVGUCMfhdA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [rtcweb] Proposed Video Selection Process
X-BeenThere: rtcweb@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Real-Time Communication in WEB-browsers working group list <rtcweb.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/rtcweb/>
List-Post: <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb>, <mailto:rtcweb-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 21 Nov 2013 21:33:39 -0000

My understanding is that WebRTC is not a browser-only thing. Also: Just 
because Mozilla may have found a way to sidestep the H.264 licensing 
issues with the help of Cisco, this doesn't mean this "fix" applies 
everywhere. For example, is the blob acceptable for Iceweasel? And what 
do the limited distribution rights of OpenH264 mean regarding system 
administration (e.g., replicating machines with disk images)?

Maik

Am 21.11.2013 22:14, schrieb Eric Rescorla:
> Agreed.
>
> To take a not-so-random example, given that Firefox will soon
> support both H.264 and VP8, what additional implementations
> will it be able to talk to if it does H.261?
>
> -Ekr
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Nov 21, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Martin Thomson
> <martin.thomson@gmail.com <mailto:martin.thomson@gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     On 21 November 2013 12:48, Basil Mohamed Gohar
>     <basilgohar@librevideo.org <mailto:basilgohar@librevideo.org>> wrote:
>      > Has anyone actually objected to H.261 being the one MTI codec [...] ?
>
>     More than one person has already.
>
>     And I find the argument raised quite compelling.  It's hard to justify
>     spending valuable time and resources on implementing something that
>     crappy.
>     _______________________________________________
>     rtcweb mailing list
>     rtcweb@ietf.org <mailto:rtcweb@ietf.org>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> rtcweb mailing list
> rtcweb@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/rtcweb
>